Jung v. State

305 S.W.3d 497, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 239, 2010 WL 711405
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 2010·No. ED 92389·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Michael Jung (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Charles denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by withdrawing a motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jung v. State, 305 S.W.3d 497, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 239, 2010 WL 711405 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

305 S.W.3d 497 (Jung v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Manzella v. State
305 S.W.3d 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)